Stalemate a likely outcome for Durban talks

High-level ministerial climate change negotiations in South Africa have all but ground to a halt two days out from their conclusion with a larger than expected range of issues now being contested.

Even issues which were considered achievable last week are now in ­dispute, including new international carbon market mechanisms and new common accounting rules.

The European Union’s lead negotiator has privately blamed the United States for derailing prospects of a deal, as the Australian government warned it may not recommit to the Kyoto Protocol.

Amid increasing acrimony in the Durban talks ahead of their conclusion today, European commissioner for climate action Connie Hedegard warned an EU delegation on Tuesday evening that the US seemed to be the only country that did not appear concerned about “going home with the blame for failure" of the talks.

A symbolic political declaration or no outcome and a decision to continue talks next year are now shaping as the most likely outcomes from the meeting, so the EU is seeking to isolate the US and cut a deal with India and China.

Related Quotes

Company Profile

“The Americans are very tough . . . it is going to be the most difficult issue," Ms Hedegard is recorded as saying in notes of meetings by a delegation from the European Parliament obtained by The Australian Financial Review.

Talks are now expected to run right through the night to Saturday morning among the 14 separate negotiating blocs, and a new draft of the decision to be taken by countries shows there are four separate options on the key issue of the legal form of a future treaty.

There is also ongoing disagreement about a new Green Climate Fund and how it will be financed and a range of other issues which cannot be resolved by officials and have been sent to ministers for resolution.

Any signs of movement in the talks are not expected until late this afternoon. But after announcing $25 million in funding for climate change projects in Africa, Climate Change minister
Greg Combet
said he was confident progress was being made in the talks.

“You’ve got to bear in mind that there’s more than 190 countries here and we’re all sitting around endeavouring to negotiate so it’s a very complex process," he told Sky News.

Ms Hedegard’s private comments came as the EU also publicly ratcheted up the pressure on the US, labelling its actions “arrogant and ignorant".

The chairman of the European Parliament environment committee, Jo Leinen, said: “For the third time this conference is hijacked by the ping pong between the US and China."

But Ms Hedegard faced criticism from her own negotiators for playing down the significance of a public ­softening in rhetoric to a new legally binding deal by China after 2020.

“Hedegaard admitted that it is important that even if they have not made significant changes in their negotiating line, it is important if they are signalling that they could be flexible," the notes say.

“It seems clear that they do not want to get blame and they are not immune to the pressure. The public statements also create a dynamic that makes it more difficult to say with a hard line."

Australia too is facing criticism in the negotiations over its attempts to use an historical baseline for measuring emissions from the forest sector and over the position it is taking on creating new market mechanisms and common accounting rules.

But Mr Combet told the plenary session of the conference that Australia would not recommit to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol unless major emitters such as China and the US were also part of a deal. “We will play our part in the global response to climate change but this global response must be environmentally effective for all our futures," Mr Combet said in his plenary speech.

“The reality is that a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol may only cover 15 per cent of global emissions. A more comprehensive agreement is fundamental to environmental effectiveness."

The talks are deadlocked over the future of the Kyoto Protocol and the legal form of any future climate change deal and the process to get to it. The EU is pushing for a “Durban Roadmap" to get to a new deal by 2015

But the US, along with India and China, is refusing to commit to new talks until at least 2015 and new binding commitments until at least 2020. The US has indicated it will not commit to any new process until it knows the terms of any resulting agreement and who would be in it.

“We argue that the Cancun commitments, and the ones made at Copenhagen (in 2009) cover 80% of global emissions ... and while they are not legally binding, they are politically and morally binding," US climate change special envoy Tod Stern said.

Mr Stern further inflamed the tension at the talks by rejecting a request by developing countries to make pledges to a new green climate fund, which countries are seeking to establish at the conference.

He also said the agreement by countries at Copenhagen to keep global warming below two degrees was not a formal “target".

“It’s important, serious and a guidepost...but we don’t see it as akin to a national target," Mr Stern said.

In notes of the EU meetings, United Nations Environment Program executive director Achim Steiner warned negotiators of “pervasive pessimism" but also attacked the US actions at the talks.

“Steiner sees the US is divided nation and says that EU should abandon the dream of transatlantic alliance and look elsewhere for climate partnership," the notes say.

“The voluntary commitments of China in their 5 year plan are stepping beyond anything they would have needed to do in Copenhagen and the world needs to recognise this. Analysis of China is important and the US reaction to change in signalling was not helpful. China spelled out conditions, which all have origins in COP decisions."

“China is oscillating between buying time and recognition that domestic commitments alone will not suffice."

Ms Hegegard said world history showed big problems were resolved by legal agreements.

“When Gorbachev and Regan met at the White House and Reyjavik in order to solve the Cold War they did not pledge voluntarily to take away their weapons; of course it was legally binding what was done," she said.

“That’s the way the international community best addresses challenges like this."

Mr Leinen was also critical of new laws introduced to the US congress preventing airlines from paying for their emissions under the EU trading scheme, saying the authors were “arrogant and ignorant".

“We expect others to respect our laws, as we respect their laws," Mr Leinen said,"I hope that others in the US are more clever and more thoughtful."